MICHAEL J. D’ALESSANDRO v. LAKE DEVELOPERS, II, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. February 22, 2012>
In 2005, Plaintiff purchased a subdivision lot believing it could later be traded toward the purchase of a condominium. Because no condominiums had been built by 2010, Plaintiff filed suit, seeking to rescind the sale and to recover damages. The trial court rescinded the warranty deed and awarded Plaintiff a return of the purchase price, plus city and county taxes paid and prejudgment interest from the filing of his complaint. Finding no failure of consideration, we reverse the trial court’s rescission of the warranty deed and its damage awards. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, promissory fraud, and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims. All remaining issues are deemed either waived or pretermitted.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/dalessandrom.pdf
Showing posts with label TN Consumer Protection Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TN Consumer Protection Act. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Court reviews the enforceability of a real estate sales contract
CASEY E. BEVANS v. RHONDA BURGESS ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 20, 2012)
Prospective buyer who signed real estate sales contract sued seller, seller’s real estate agent and broker, and the actual buyers for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and specific performance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that there was no enforceable contract. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bevansc_032012.pdf
Prospective buyer who signed real estate sales contract sued seller, seller’s real estate agent and broker, and the actual buyers for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and specific performance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that there was no enforceable contract. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bevansc_032012.pdf
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Court reviews whether a home owners' association properly amended its restrictive covenants to increase the amount of dues
GRAND VALLEY LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. DENNIS BURROW (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2011)
Appellant, the owner of several lots in a subdivision managed and maintained by the Appellee home owners association, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee on the question of whether Appellant owed an increase in dues and fees on his lots, and the denial of his counter-claims for fraud, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, outrageous conduct, and invalidity of the restrictive covenants on grounds that these causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or the doctrine of laches.
We conclude that the Appellee followed the correct procedure in amending its restrictive covenants to increase the amount of dues. However, because the trial court did not make findings, as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04, concerning the grounds for its application of laches, we cannot review the question of whether Appellant's counter-claims were properly dismissed. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/grandvalley_122811.pdf
Appellant, the owner of several lots in a subdivision managed and maintained by the Appellee home owners association, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee on the question of whether Appellant owed an increase in dues and fees on his lots, and the denial of his counter-claims for fraud, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, outrageous conduct, and invalidity of the restrictive covenants on grounds that these causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or the doctrine of laches.
We conclude that the Appellee followed the correct procedure in amending its restrictive covenants to increase the amount of dues. However, because the trial court did not make findings, as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04, concerning the grounds for its application of laches, we cannot review the question of whether Appellant's counter-claims were properly dismissed. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/grandvalley_122811.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)